Modifié par Pstemarie, 21 février 2014 - 12:40 .
Modifié par henesua, 21 février 2014 - 12:55 .
henesua wrote...
But first I still have lots of AI I am working on.
As someone who uses and and loves SkyRe, I wanna note that the reason it uses this modular approach is that the mechanics changes it introduces can cause game-breaking compatibility issues with other mods that alter the same things.Elhanan wrote...
I know little of mod crafting, but based as a frequent mod user in NWN and Skyrim, mods (especially those that perform some type of overhaul )generally appear to be better received when designed as modular. In Skyrim, the SkyRe design allows the indv Player to choose which of the alterations they desire to activate, as opposed to some other mods which only allow for the author's vision.
Neither are wrong, but allowing the indv Player to better customize their own experience appears to be the more popular and useful choice.
Modifié par Squatting Monk, 21 février 2014 - 11:48 .
Squatting Monk wrote...
As someone who uses and and loves SkyRe, I wanna note that the reason it uses this modular approach is that the mechanics changes it introduces can cause game-breaking compatibility issues with other mods that alter the same things.
To my (limited) knowledge, the CPP doesn't have these problems, and so likely would not benefit from a modular approach. Module switches are great, though they're probably only needed for big changes or ones that could significantly affect game balance. A module switch for every little thing may be nifty, but it's likely to be overwhelming, both for ShadoOow and for users.
Modifié par Elhanan, 22 février 2014 - 12:02 .
WebShaman wrote...
henesua wrote...
But first I still have lots of AI I am working on.
Now I am interested...new AI for NWN?
Could you include AI options for using PRC stuff?
Modifié par WebShaman, 22 février 2014 - 01:59 .
NP, Webshaman. I wound up not having to use the CPP patch170.hak as I combined the 2da files into my tophak. The rest of the files weren't need because I already have my own baseitem models and I use custom templates for all the creatures in my LAN server.WebShaman wrote...
@ Pstemarie - nice to hear, and it corresponds with the testing that I did. And my sincerest apologies for stating that Project Q was RIP. I corregated it.
WebShaman wrote...
One of the main problems with the PRC is that many of the passive feats do not get used by the AI (not to mention Psionics, etc). Boneshank did a great job on the Epic Spellcasting System, that eventually made it's way into the PRC in the form it is now - the AI will use a lot of those spells (and if one gives the NPC virtual XP, will even cast Epic Spells that use up XP!).
It is a limitation that does irritate. I mean, who wouldn't want an AI using Psionics? Nice stuff!
Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 22 février 2014 - 12:41 .
Modifié par henesua, 22 février 2014 - 02:19 .
Modifié par henesua, 22 février 2014 - 08:04 .
Modifié par WebShaman, 23 février 2014 - 02:28 .
We are talking 3.0 rules where die rules are established. This isn't the days where a numerical range could be assigned five or more different probability distributions given the dice one was limited to.
Still I have not yet seen an instance quoted where 1d8 + 5 is treated any differently than 1d8 + 1 per caster level, or the like. The DnD reasoning for magic missile, indicates the number of missiles isn't increased because there is no variable affecting the number of missiles. If there were one would expect a total effect of 2.25 damage, although each application of damage would only be multiplied by 1.5.
Numerical means a value that is specifically indicated in the description. E.g. each missile deals 1d4 + 1, means 1d4 + 1 is numerical. If the target resisted one magical damage, then 1d4 +1 would still be numerical and the resistance would occur afterward, rather than the resistance coming before and 1d4 being numerical. Because 1d4 is a variable, the entire 1d4 +1 will not be a constant number, and thus the total is multiplied by 1.5.
Btw, when this is settled already. Will this be changed on nwn wiki someday perhaps? Most specifically, will someone redo The Krit's undo from 14:31, April 12, 2012? I worry he will revert it again for the third time.
I think The Krit was referring to the sentence in BioWare's empower spell feat description:
Empowerment does not increase spell duration.
I think The Krit was referring to the sentence in BioWare's empower spell feat description:
Empowerment does not increase spell duration.
I know what he was reffering to. And that correct, but the case of the spells its a duration of the spell effect, not a spell duration so empowering is possible. You said it in your post I quoted above yourself.
I didn't mention duration specifically. The 3.0 SRD mentions healing, creatures affected, and damage as definite candidates, while checks and saving throws are definitely not candidates. Other values in 3.0 reasoning fall into the grey area. The number of magic missiles was brought up by the FAQ as a candidate if the number was variable (which it was not since there was no die roll involved to calculate the number). Thus objects created (whether missiles or the like) would fall into the same category as creatures affected.
Stonehold would not be considered by 3.0 as wall of stone doesn't possess this variable duration. (In fact, DnD tries to stay away from putting variables in awkward places that might be difficult to rule on). One 3.0 example of a difficult ruling is one I brought up earlier with Evard's. The 3.0 spell creates a large number of creatures. These creatures each have a specific AI which causes them to perform a specific grapple attack that deals d6 damage increased by +4 for the creature's strength bonus. At this point I feel that the damage dealt is no longer a function of the spell but the creature created. So the 3.0 spell would definitely empower the number of tentacles but it would be debatable whether it would affect the 1d6 damage (not 1d6+4 as that quantity was never specifically stated as that one value). In 3.5 there is no "number" to the tentacles, instead many of them together afflict a target causing a combined damage of 1d6 +4. This I have more reason to call spell damage as the tentacles are no longer ordinary locatable creatures, but rather an illocal unkillable mass, like entangle. So 3.5 Evard's empowered would empower damage.
I didn't mention duration specifically. The 3.0 SRD mentions healing, creatures affected, and damage as definite candidates, while checks and saving throws are definitely not candidates. Other values in 3.0 reasoning fall into the grey area. The number of magic missiles was brought up by the FAQ as a candidate if the number was variable (which it was not since there was no die roll involved to calculate the number). Thus objects created (whether missiles or the like) would fall into the same category as creatures affected.
What Empower spell doesn't affect are any skill checks, saving throw checks, and other checks. If a spell makes a variable ammount of saving throw bonus, then the saving throw bonus is subject to empower. The description says, all numeric, variable effects. It doesn't really matter whether the effect is a damage, healing, saving throw bonus, temporary hitpoints, attack bonus or duration of the effects from AOE that spell creates.
This I have more reason to call spell damage as the tentacles are no longer ordinary locatable creatures, but rather an illocal unkillable mass, like entangle. So 3.5 Evard's empowered would empower damage.
Im not so convinced by this argument. This "creature" is not described anywhere outside of the spell. Its not like the Shambler spell that defines the creation of 1d4()+something shambler mounds where their damage is definitely not a subject to a metamagic. 3.0 evard tentacles on the other hand? I would say that they do.
1) The Krits argument is off. Duration of the spell effects != duration of the spell. (and this itself should be reason to revisit my edit back in 2012)
2) the way its written in the spell description makes it to be the "numeric, variable effect"
3) to your argument with tentacles to be a creatures: each of these spells, magic missile, color spray, cloud of bewilderment, evards black tentacles is creating an object and its this object who is making the damage/effect. No difference between these and we know that damage of the missiles created by the Magic Missile spell are affected.
What Empower spell doesn't affect are any skill checks, saving throw checks, and other checks. If a spell makes a variable ammount of saving throw bonus, then the saving throw bonus is subject to empower. The description says, all numeric, variable effects. It doesn't really matter whether the effect is a damage, healing, saving throw bonus, temporary hitpoints, attack bonus or duration of the effects from AOE that spell creates.
Empower Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, etc., as appropriate. Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one the character makes when the character casts dispel magic) are not affected. Spells without random variables are not affected. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.
This is the description see that damage, healing, and targets are definite; while opposed rolls (checks) and saving throws are rejected. What is left is grey area, it can be argued back and forth.
Im not so convinced by this argument. This "creature" is not described anywhere outside of the spell. Its not like the Shambler spell that defines the creation of 1d4()+something shambler mounds where their damage is definitely not a subject to a metamagic. 3.0 evard tentacles on the other hand? I would say that they do.
3.0 provides full creature statistics for its tentacles including saving throws, hit points, strength, base damage, and the types of spell immunity. It is unlikely that the 1d6 meant anything other than part of the description of the creature (especially given how the description reminds you parenthetically that the strength bonus (+4) is to be applied). However given that this value is within the spell description and it doesn't meet the automatic in or automatic out criteria it is within the grey area, and as such is debatable.
1) The Krits argument is off. Duration of the spell effects != duration of the spell. (and this itself should be reason to revisit my edit back in 2012)
Your edit was to delete a comment. By not wanting your edit "reverted" again did you want to have the comment completely removed, or to have some explanation so that it would not get readded?
2) the way its written in the spell description makes it to be the "numeric, variable effect"
Which means when going through a spell description if a numeric expression is encountered and the evaluation of that expression is not a constant then it would be a "numeric, variable effect." However, later sentences give indication as to what is automatically qualified and disqualified producing the grey area where numeric, variable effects may be questioned as to whether or not they should be increased.
3) to your argument with tentacles to be a creatures: each of these spells, magic missile, color spray, cloud of bewilderment, evards black tentacles is creating an object and its this object who is making the damage/effect. No difference between these and we know that damage of the missiles created by the Magic Missile spell are affected.
If you argue that way then you would have dismissed the way I argued the 3.5 tentacles. No, the 3.0 tentacle's damage was ruled as part of the normal attack due to the way the spell presented it.
Evards Black Tentactles are no more a creature than one of Bigby's hands. The tentacles are a spell effect that emulates certain elements pertinent to creatures. Furthermore, every spell that conjures or creates a creature either provides the full stats for it or refers you to an entry in the Monster Manual. Since the tentacles are a variable numeric effect generated by a spell, if the spell is empowered, the number of tentacles is multiplied by 1.5.
From the 3.0 Player's Handbook p. 201This spell conjures many rubbery black tentacles. These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot—including water. There are 1d4 such tentacles, plus one per caster level, appearing randomly scattered about the area. Each tentacle is 10 feet long (Large) and saves as you do. It has AC 16, 1 hit point/per caster level, an attack bonus of +1/per caster level, and a Strength score of 19 (+4 bonus). It is immune to spells that don’t cause damage (other than disintegrate).
As you can see, nowhere within that initial block of text, or the rest of the spell description, are the tentacles described as a creature. If anything they're more or less described as a field of tentacles more akin to the Entangle spell than to any creature. The only reason they are given stats is because victims of the tentacles have to attack them to break free or wait for the spell to end.
damn these new forums the quoting is so bad feature here now...
so without quoting Whizard:
Gray area, awesome, I could have used this argument too for the caster level bonus. I mean seriously? As explained in some of the FAQs at the start, the description lists what you cant do, and everything else is allowed - to list everything that can be done is simply not a possible. If you want to use this argument then we can throw up the whole 8 pages of debate whether is the +1/per caster level meant to be empowered or not (where I found The Krit's explanation for this very convincing before)
I see this exactly as Pstemarie wrote, the tentacle is not a creature any more than bigbi's hand. And see that the +11 which is added to the 1d8 damage is the hand's strength modifier even in a 3.5 rules. What a surprise. (EDIT: same is true for the evards, where the desription states the tentacle has 19 strength which match with the +4 bonus to the 1d6 damage)
But lets not talk about DnD 3.0 / 3.5 where this is perhaps written in a way opened for speculations. The way the spell descriptions are written in NWN makes no room for that.
"The following spells can have their variable durations empowered, despite durations normally not being affected by this feat."
Color spray
Stonehold
Yes, I removed this comment because the fact that the spell can be empowered is correct in my understanding of this feat. The spell has duration instaneous and 1round/level there. This was immediately re-added with a offensive comment that I do not understand english. The feat description doesn's say that - it specifically states the spell duration and this is not to be confused with the duration of the effects that spell creates.
Since the tentacles are a variable numeric effect generated by a spell, if the spell is empowered, the number of tentacles is multiplied by 1.5.
That is what I mentioned. The discussion on whether the tentacles are to be considered a creature is regarding their grapple attack 1d6 damage (which is modified by the +4 strength modifier). Does the damage also get empowered? My ruling is that for 3.0 Evard's that the damage stays at 1d6 +4. The other interpretation is that the damage is at (1d6) * 1.5 + 4 (that is the base damage for the tentacles is empowered). You might want to post the second half or go back to page 12 of this discussion where I posted the entirety of the 3.0 description from the SRD.
Retour en haut